This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.

"Among Catholics, neo-Scholasticism gains ground day by day, doing away with Ontologism, Traditionalism, the Dualism of Gunther, and the exaggerated Spiritualism of Descartes. It is free from the weaknesses of Pragmatism and Voluntarism, in which some thinkers vainly sought the reconciliation of their philosophy and their faith. Neo-Scholasticism has a character of permanence as truth itself has; but it is destined in its development to keep up with scientific progress. Like everything that lives, it must advance; arrested growth would mean decay."

It reads more like a pep-talk to fellow neo-Scholastics than an impartial encyclopedia article. This is only one example among many.Nda02a (talk) 20:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but this whole article seems to be from early 1900s, so it's also really out of date too. It really should be redone, but I don't know who would do it. --HTZ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanktzepeda (talk • contribs) 17:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The article is simply a reformulation of Catholic Encyclopedia on Neo-Scholasticism. That encyclopedia is good and reliable on Roman-Catholic matters, but the tone and formulations of this article should be more Wikipedian, kind of. Said: Rursus☻ 07:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I note that the page on Clemens Timpler refers to the Protestant ReformedNeuscholastik, but this occurs at the outbreak of the seventeenth century. I feel that relying on the [[Catholic Encyclopedia] might give us a somewhat biased account of the matter. Certainly I think the page needs considerably re-working.Harrypotter (talk) 11:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

So who will do the reworking of this article? Is it sufficient to augment it with references from other sources, or should it be completely rewritten? Madnova777 (talk) 02:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no argument with the preceeding commentators. However, the "historical catholic position" is, in itself, a valid desideratum. That non-catholic views, and/or interpretations, should be included in the wiki is patently obvious but it begs the question of which of the protesting commentators can or will flesh out their "position(s)". There is a multitude of academics out there in radioland teaching on the subject -- many with deep insight and true talent in pedagogy -- not one of them so unqualified as I. Hopefully, they will find their way to and the time to address this issue. Got any recommendations? Any links? Westernesse (talk) 03:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The article should maybe try to explain the causes that led to thomism's decline in the 1970s, at least in the form of neothomism. One of the reasons is the Church's active dialogue with other religions, many of which had been frankly opposed to the aristotelian origins of thomism. Another reason is the general intellectual turmoil that the West experienced in the years that followed the 1968 cultural revolution. Many former thomists either adopted entirely secular philosophies such as structuralism and phenomenology or embraced new intellectual currents within the Church itself, such as anonymous Christianity, ecclesiology of communion and liberation theology. ADM (talk) 11:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved

It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given

In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)